Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

Re: Tractive Effort

May 29, 2008 09:20AM
The tractive effort figures given for a locomotive (steam or diesel) are only the theoretical pull developed at very low speeds, and by itself is pretty much a worthless figure. Most steam locomotives and early diesels list a tractive effort based on 25% of the weight on drivers.

For steam locomotives, the cylinder horsepower is generally designed to be at this figure. Once moving, at some point, depending on the design, the cylinders demand more steam than the boiler can produce. This requires the johnson bar to be "hooked up" or moved towards center limiting the time steam is admitted to the cylinders, resulting in a substantial drop in tractive effort/drawbar pull.

The 25% figure for a diesel-electric (later 30%, now 40%+ with modern AC drive or electronic wheel slip systems) is the starting tractive effort, an indication of the maximum TE it can theoretically develop before the drivers lose adhesion and slip. As speed increases, the tractive effort drops off dramatically. In addition, there is a minimum continuous speed that it must be operated at to staay within the limits of its electrical system (to prevent overheating). In addition, a diesel engine's nominal horsepower rating is only up to 1500 feet elevation and must be derated at higher altitudes.

The TE curve for a diesel-electric locomotive can be calculated by knowing the traction horsepower (generator input), and the continuous rating is often pblished for each model. Referring to a DE loco as a "25 ton", "44 ton", etc. suggests nothing but the starting tractive effort and low speed short time capability.

For a steam locomotive, to calculate the true TE for a given speed you have to know the boiler capabilities. Generally, the bigger the firebox/heating surface ratio to the TE the more a loco will pull at speed. THis is one reason the trailing truck design became popular, a 2-8-2 has greater boiler horsepower than a 2-8-0 with the same TE, etc.

Regardless, you have to subtract the tractive effort required to move the locomotive (and tender) itself. While a high weight on drivers is a good thing while at low speeds, at a higher speed it becomes dead weight that must be drug up the hill.

Theoretical approximate tractive efforts for the Loop diesels:

#? GE 25T 12,500# starting 3,100# @10 mph
#21 GE 44T 22,000# starting 9,200# @10 mph
#1203 Porter 40,000# starting 13,500# @10 mph

The above figures are only a guess since I do not know the true horsepower input. Starting tractive effort can vary from 20% to 30+% depending on adhesion conditions. Note that the TE at 10 mph is far less than the maximum tractive effort often listed.
Subject Author Posted

Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

Chris Webster May 28, 2008 03:16PM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

Dan Robirds May 28, 2008 05:31PM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

South Park May 28, 2008 08:18PM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

Chris Webster May 28, 2008 09:17PM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

WW5252 May 29, 2008 12:07AM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

ND Holmes May 28, 2008 09:35PM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

Dan Robirds May 28, 2008 09:50PM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

South Park May 28, 2008 11:23PM

Re: ROW Changes Attachments

Tim Bain May 29, 2008 01:07AM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

dougvv May 29, 2008 01:21AM

Re: Breckenridge wants C&S #9 in 2009 (and no Loop steam until at least July)

Tim Schreiner May 29, 2008 08:08AM

Re: Tractive Effort

Dan Robirds May 29, 2008 09:20AM

Re: Tractive Effort

South Park May 29, 2008 08:15PM

Re: priorities

Jeff Badger May 30, 2008 08:46AM

Re: Photo(s) of diseasel #21, please.

Russo Loco May 30, 2008 07:34PM

Re: Photo(s) of diseasel #21, please. Attachments

Dick Bell May 30, 2008 09:46PM

Re: Diseasel #21 Derailment(s) - a possible reason ...

Russo Loco May 30, 2008 10:51PM

Re: Diseasel #21 Derailment(s) - a possible reason ...

dougvv May 31, 2008 01:34AM

Re: Diseasel #21 Derailment(s) - a possible reason ...

Sam May 31, 2008 11:42AM

Re: Diseasel #21 Derailment(s) - a possible reason ...

Dan Robirds May 31, 2008 02:14PM

Re: Diseasel #21 Derailment(s) - a possible reason ...

dougvv May 31, 2008 02:55PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login